Why It's Dangerous to Label People

If you lined up 1000 randomly selected people from across the earth, none of them would share exactly the same skin tone. You could arrange them from darkest to lightest and there wouldn't be a single tie. Of course, the continuity of skin tone hasn't stopped humans from assigning each other to discrete skin-color categories like "black" and "white"--categories that have no basis in biology but nonetheless go on to determine the social, political, and economic wellbeing of their members.

Categorical labeling is a tool that humans use to resolve the impossible complexity of the environments we grapple to perceive. Like so many human faculties, it's adaptive and miraculous, but it also contributes to some of the deepest problems that face our species.

Researchers began to study the cognitive effects of labeling in the 1930s, when linguist Benjamin Whorf proposed the linguistic relativity hypothesis. According to his hypothesis, the words we use to describe what we see aren't just idle placeholders--they actually determine what we see. According to one apocryphal tale, the Inuit can distinguish between dozens of different types of snow that the rest of us perceive, simply, as "snow," because they have a different label for each type. The story isn't true (the Inuit have the same number of words for snow as we do), but research by Lera Boroditsky, a cognitive psychologist, and several of her colleagues suggests that it holds a kernel of truth. Boroditsky and her colleagues asked English and Russian speakers to distinguish between two very similar but subtly different shades of blue. In English, we have a single word for the color blue, but Russians divide the spectrum of blue into lighter blues ("goluboy") and darker blues ("siniy"). Where we use a single label for the color, they use two different labels. When the two shades of blue straddled the goluboy/siniy divide, the Russian speakers were much quicker to distinguish between them, because they had readily available labels for the two colors that the English speakers lumped together as "blue."

Labels shape more than our perception of color; they also change how we perceive more complex targets, like people. Jennifer Eberhardt, a social psychologist at Stanford, and her colleagues showed white college students a pictures of a man who was racially ambiguous--he could have plausibly fallen into the "white" category or the "black" category. For half the students, the face was described as belonging to a white man, and for the other half it was described as belonging to a black man. In one task, the experimenter asked the students to spend four minutes drawing the face as it sat on the screen in front of them. Although all the students were looking at the same face, those who tended to believe that race is an entrenched human characteristic drew faces that matched the stereotype associated with the label (see a sample below). The racial labels formed a lens through with the students saw the man, and they were incapable of perceiving him independently of that label.

Race isn't the only label that shapes perception, and a classic study by John Darley and Paget Gross showed similar effects when they varied whether a young girl, Hannah, seemed poor or wealthy. College students watched a video of Hannah playing in her neighborhood, and read a brief fact sheet that described her background. Some of the students watched Hannah playing in a low-income housing estate, and her parents were described as high school graduates with blue collar jobs; the remaining students watched Hannah behaving similarly, but this time she was filmed playing in a tree-lined middle-class neighborhood, and her parents were described as college-educated professionals. The students were asked to assess Hannah's academic ability after watching her respond to a series of achievement-test questions. In the video, Hannah responded inconsistently sometimes answering difficult questions correctly and sometimes answering simpler questions incorrectly. Hannah's academic ability remained difficult to discern, but that didn't stop the students from using her socioeconomic status as a proxy for academic ability. When Hannah was labeled "middle-class," the students believed she performed close to a fifth-grade level, but when she was labeled "poor," they believed she performed below a fourth-grade level.

The long-term consequences of labeling a child like Hannah "smart" or "slow" are profound. In another classic study, Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson told teachers at an elementary school that some of their students had scored in the top 20% of a test designed to identify "academic bloomers"--students who were expected to enter a period of intense intellectual development over the following year. In fact, the students were selected randomly, and they performed no differently from their unselected peers on a genuine academic test. A year after convincing the teachers that some of their students were due to bloom, Rosenthal and Jacobson returned to the school and administered the same test. The results were astonishing among the younger children: the "bloomers," who were no different from their peers a year ago, now outperformed their unselected peers by 10-15 IQ points. The teachers fostered the intellectual development of the "bloomers," producing a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the students who were baselessly expected to bloom actually outperformed their peers.

Labeling isn't always a cause for concern, and it's often very useful. It would be impossible to catalogue the information we process during our lives without the aid of labels like "friendly," "deceitful," "tasty," and "harmful." But it's important to recognize that the people we label as "black," "white," "rich," poor," smart," and "simple," seem blacker, whiter, richer, poorer, smarter, and simpler merely because we've labeled them so.

Great piece, Adam! I was wondering how uniquely human 'categorical labeling' actually is. We know many nonhuman primates are efficient at categorizing objects (e.g., Santos, Hauser, & Spelke, 2001). While they can't exactly attach labels to those categories, do nonhuman primates draw inferences about individuals from their perceived categories?

Thanks, Amy! The paper you referenced is fascinating, and I hadn't come across it before. As you suggested, it implies that nonhuman primates might categorize individuals (since they categorize objects), and I've amended the relevant phrase in the introduction to reflect that possibility. Still, I think it's unlikely that nonhuman primates actually "label" individuals, and more likely that they categorize them without the aid of labels (given their limited ability to communicate linguistically).

Everybody's skin color may be different but if we all were to cut our fingers the color of our blood is red we all bleed the same. That is one thing my father always thought us this while we were kids growing up it doesn't matter the color of your skin we are all the same

Great piece, Adam! I was wondering how uniquely human 'categorical labeling' actually is. We know many nonhuman primates are efficient at categorizing objects (e.g., Santos, Hauser, & Spelke, 2001). While they can't exactly attach labels to those categories, do nonhuman primates draw inferences about individuals from their perceived categories?

And good question; the picture of Queen Elizabeth is from a series of race-awareness photos in which the photographer digitally altered the race of famous people. In some of the photos, white people were altered to look black (as in this case--though I can see that the alteration wasn't clear!), and in others they altered black people to look white. I thought it was a nice demonstration of the categorical nature of race labels, where changing the person's skin tone shifts them from one racial category to another.

I felt that the article was very informative and is a great educational source. It was backed with sufficient evidence and information to makes it point on how labeling is a "bad" thing. People seem a certain way because we labeled them that way, which is not always true. Well this article was very good, and i enjoyed reading it.

You did a good job saying that its informative and has great educational sources but you should explain which sources were good and why. You should use a different word other than "bad" to make it said smarter. It is true that people are labeled and it's good to actually get to know someone. Tell why the article is very good with information to the article to make it seem like you actually read it.

I thought the article was written well. I thought it was cool to show the picture of the man who looked black or white and the drawings of other students. I also liked that it explained how sterotypes shape our mind. For example with the young girl and the different videos and background information on her how the students saw her differently.

The part where teachers were told certain students would be academic bloomers was interesting to me. The teachers seemed to treat the students differently because they were told those students would do better. I thought it was cool that those students actually did preform better than the other student. If teachers treated all students like that maybe more kids will do better in school.

I completely agree with you that in schools, if more students were treated with equality, it would make it easier for them to succeed. They wouldnt have to sit in class worring about what others thought of them and could actually focus on their education. The teachers also like to sterotype which can also hinder the learning process. The world just needs peace.

Labeling things such as humans can give rise to negative connotations. As you said in the article, people generally stereotype people based solely upon their race. This is evident in the past with racial discrimination and whatnot, but is still evident today, albeit on a lesser scale. This was scene during the test where one group was told that the man in question is black, while another group was told that he was white. Yes, all humans are different, but they are still grouped together with words like "white" or "black,"

People are stereotyped over many more labeling qualities than race. Sex, national origin, creed, social class, and weight are other qualities people are labeled with. I find it interesting that your handle is "Thatoneasian" while you denounce the practice of racial discrimination and labeling. Food for thought.

This article provides some great insight on how easy labels can be put onto a group of people. This is a very good way to learn about the "unfair" treatment that people of varying backgrounds can receive. For example, the study using the picture who was ethnically ambiguous, people make him out to be someone that he isn't just by looking at a picture of him. The only way to truly know someone is to actually speak to them, and even then you cannot hold others that share the same ethnicity accountable for his actions. As the saying goes you cannot judge a book by its cover.

I believe that actual stereotyping is a hindrance to our society as a whole. Stereotypes do one of two things: they either keep you stagnant or they keep you under constant pressure. With a stereotype, you can be stagnant because some people believe they cannot achieve anything higher than their stereotype. Let’s say someone is stereotyped as a person who will never be successful. Although there is a strong chance that they could be successful, their view of themselves (due to the stereotypes) steers them in other directions. They believe that they cannot go any higher the expectations others may have for them. Stereotypes can also be pressuring. When labeled as “smart,” there is a constant pressure to uphold what you are labeled as. This same pressure is the exact pressure that causes teenagers to have anxiety.

This seems like it shows a lot of how white and black people could think of each other. In the article it asked a black and white college student to draw a ambiguous man. The black drawing was showing a man that actually seemed like they could be another black person. The white drawing could be another white or different race that they may seem is dangerous. From the way a person looks people would judge on how they think they live. If they have good and expensive looking clothes people could think their smart. If their clothes are used and have holes they may be thought to be hand me downs or they can be poor.

great article my fellow assistant proffesor. I do too so strongly believe in how these beliefs and understandings have been engrained in the human condition. These so called stereotypes has been past on since beginning of our time, as in the human race. By the same token I personally believe it is not just in humans that labeling is found. My opinion is that it is found in all living species... for example in a chettah packs the ones with different spots stick together as well as are outcasted from the other packs. in all this is a great point that I always think about and thank you very much for your very article that hit so many points which i believe needed to be discussed. #ilikeshania

There's a certain futility to these types of studies because humans have been evolutionarily trained to categorize things in their subconscious. Most of this categorization is on the basis of "threatening" or "nonthreatening." Since society has formed to the point where daily threats have decreased, this categorizing function of the brain remains active in a different way. We look at things around us and instantly match it with things we already know. When faced with identifying someone in front of you, your brain first identifies that they are a person. Often the next greatest feature is race or complexion, followed by sex. This categorization takes place in less than a second allowing you to say "That's a black guy." Further identification would involve looking at facial features, hair, body language, and clothing. The brain also groups qualities with most of it's categorization. This allows you to see a cardboard box and feel confident that it's hollow without actually checking. Race and socioeconomic class, since it is used to mentally classify people, will naturally come along with connotations of certain qualities. What those qualities are depend exclusively on the person who believes them and what they've experienced.

This article was really interesting to read because it explains why humans label other humans. It also mentions how our assumptions can be misleading and how labeling others can blur our view. Just by judging someone does not necessarily mean that they are placed where they should be. I now realize how I might be judging others based on their appearance or other characteristics, but in reality, it is our human nature to judge. Judging is somethings that we as humans can not control. Now, it suddenly changes my view of the world.

I find interesting how you noticed judging others is Human nature and that can't control it. I have to disagree with part of that. I agree that judging others is a natural thing and we all do it but i disagree with the part about not being able to control it. Judging isn't always a bad thing and we do have to make judgments. What im getting at is that although judging others is something so natural if you try and look at people in a different way you can refrain from judging them. No body is perfect and if you accept your flaws and others you may be less likely to judge others. The End.

I agree with this comment! I too found that i learned more about why we label people in our minds. I think that for most humans, if we can't put a label on someone or something, then that scares us, because as people, the unknown scares us. I also agree that we may subconsciously label people. Great comment :)

The danger with putting labels on people is that our labels can easily harden into stereotypes, therefore leading to much worst. Inacurate generalizations lead to suicides and self harm, especially in young teens. Assuming that someone is a certain way because of their skin color or physical characteristics are typical behaviors of Americans that should no longer be practiced. Most generalizations come from what people were taught from family members as they were growing up but people need to change their ways and standards.

I quite agree with what you are saying. Many of these labels can harden into stereotypes and sadly lead to many unfortunate situations. I totally agree when you said that people need to change their ways and standards on how they view others of different races, skin color, etc.

Labeling as become a large part of todays world. We tend to label because its what we think and normally we decide on the label we put on an object through other people, freids or family. This is because we are prejeduce to what who we are. Myself being a yound white female, the majority of my freinds are found to be also young white females. In the article it said uses the picture of the young male, who we never found who was white or black was labeled black through his larger lips and possibly his hair. He could have also been labeled white for his nose and possibly his hair. Although half of the class said he was white and the other said he was white this all contributes to the fact that we label people through what we see the most or what we are around through our friends, family, or people around us. Therefore, i agree with this article and think labeling plays a large part in the world today.

I feel that no person should be labeled for any reason. Labeling people can bring about talk of racism and prejudices. The only time I feel that it is ok label someone is if they want to be labeled for something such as an achievement. I really liked your explanation with the differences in the drawing. I feel this accurately shows the differences in people in how they view thing.

Labeling can be a double edged sword. The "Ambiguous Target Face", for example, could be labeled either way, and that can both help him, or hold him back. For example, if this man was going in for an interview, and the man interviewing him was racist against black people,and the man thought he was white, then he could have an upper hand, versus if the man thought he was black. The same thing can happen with the "bloomer" children. If a teacher thought that a kid was going to be a genius one day, and treated them as such, then the kid would probably be some kind of genius. If the teacher thought that the same kid would amount to nothing in life, and treated hem like that, then the kid would probably amount to nothing. So really, labeling and discrimination is based on how you perceive a person.

Dear Rivkah,
Your observations are very interesting. I agree,that labeling is a double edged sword. Labeling can either be beneficial or detrimental. If one gives an item a certain name, then the item is given a certain generalization. Labeling and discrimination are gateways to generalizations. It is odd to think about how much our perception affects our view of the world. It is also our cognitive nature to label and stereotype. It is in our genes. Why is it so hard to go against our certain biased beliefs? Why is it the human condition to label? Also, why does labeling affect our personalities so much. When a person is treated as "gifted" then they will grow up as "gifted." This also applies to children being treated as average, they will grow up as average. Labeling and observations affect our perception way to much.

My native languange is Serbian, and we also label things and people like many other languanges do. Like some previous comment say, it is a evolution thing to difference danger and pleasure, and etc. But now, when we are civilized, languange must evolve. My solution is to not use labels on humans like black, doctor, homeless, American, karate master. We can be only humans and do, like and have preferences to some different things. So we shold say: man who have dark tone of skin, man who practice or have practied medicine or finished medical school, man who lives on streets or have no home to live in, man who lives in America or man who was born in America or man who clasiffies him self as American, man who mastered karate or man who teachs others to master karate. In this way we are not losing true informations as when we label things and this kind of languange will not push all other reasoning in generalization,in less informative or in wors case false informations like labeling does. Problem and solution is in the languange, because, as this article confirmes it, we think like we speak.

I felt that the article was very interesting. One of my favorite parts was when the students looked at the ambiguous picture. The stereotypes that the students had reflected their picture of the man. It showed how stereotypes had influenced their idea of either a "black man" or "white man". For an example, the black man had bigger lips and curly hair. While the white man had smaller lips and straighter her.

I think that some people do not realize how stereotype effect certain ethnicities. Stereotypes are instilled into lives and that is why I believe in what you responded. However, I do believe that some ethnicities, no matter how hard they try, will never understand how stereotypes affect certain races.

Labeling, in its most simple form, is harmless. Useful even. Labeling things generally, like food, cold,and hot give us basic information that tells us what we need to know in order to know how to deal with something. Then you can give more specifics, like red, nice, and tasty. These differences are helpful in our way of life. Labeling things gets more dangerous, howvever, when you label people based on superficial, quick observances like Black or white, goth, or terrorist. These stereotypes can be harmful to the person, make everyone judge the person the same way, and are generally a bad way to live.

This is a very interesting article. It is very interesting to see how much labeling plays a role in our perception of a person. Although we do not want to, subconsciously we all label and stereotype people based on previous people we have met. It is in our cognitive nature to label. Sometimes these labels and generalizations may be harmful, and sometimes they are necessary. Labels are everywhere. It is impossible to escape labeling in today's world. Although labeling is mostly a hindrance, humans have evolved to categorizing creatures. It is in our nature.

Labels have been used for a long time to categorize someone as friend or foe, good or bad, saint or evil. But I am here to expose how these labels (or stereotypes if you wish) have tarnished the good name of people who either are innocent, have made a mistake along the way, or are struggling now with either drug or other addictive troubles.

Getting to know these people more intimately will allow you to understand what exactly it is you pass by every day, without a care to how they got there, or even where they are going. You assign a label and move on.

It's time to break down the barriers that labels have made, and start living as humans again. I indent to expose that and show you just why this is the next step.

I have started a kickstarter project to make this documentary, and would appreciate any traction anyone could provide to make this project a reality. Please, if you can donate, it's appreciated. If you can't, PLEASE share this with others so they have the opportunity to help.

On one hand, it is said we need to label people so that we can protect ourselves from them.
Unstable people with mental health labels, for instance, should not be allowed to climb up the social ladder... or so it is generally believed.

My life has been controlled by psychiatry and labeling since I was a child in foster care.
The stigma and abuse has been unbelievable.
Physical abuse, segregation, expulsions, etc...
...all from accusations of mental illness.
Worse yet, it is common practice for professional in the social science fields to habitually try their hand at fault finding to prove their keen intellect, turning care into an abusive relationship.
What started out as A.D.D., then escalated into over a dozen psychiatric labels and constant abuse from any authority which was made aware of the labels.

It's never going to be ok for me in my lifetime, that's for sure.
People will take a simple normal fault and exaggerate it in ad hominem style until I die.

I wish this article would grant me a ray of hope, but it hasn't.
Without labeling people via the DSM, then people would no longer be interested in the field. It makes people feel smart. To hell with the well being of the accused, it's necessary for their ego and wallet... or so it seems.

Why isn't there any articles like this on the socratic method?
The very reason why the social sciences are not considered sciences.
98% of social sciences are anti-science in the area of epistemology because those habitually abuse "the argument from ignorance" as their defense in wild accusations.